Pages Property Investments Pty Ltd v Boros [2019] NSWSC 1778

Pages Property Investments Pty Ltd v Boros [2019] NSWSC 1778

The plaintiff was substantially successful on both the Subpoena Motion and the Plaintiff's Motion, having ultimately obtained virtually all the documents it sought after protracted and resisted discovery efforts by the defendants, justifying a departure from the default 'costs in the cause' order under UCPR r 42.7(1) and a discrete costs order in favour of the plaintiff for the relevant motions and hearings.

Parties
Plaintiff: Pages Property Investments Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Attila Boros; Second Defendant: Pages Equipment Holdings Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Equity Corporations List / Post Interlocutory Motions for Costs
Outcome
Defendants ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the first defendant's Notice of Motion filed 16 April 2018, the plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed 13 March 2019 and specified related hearings.
Legal Topics
Costs, Discovery and Subpoenas, Interlocutory Applications
Equity Corporations Law Civil Procedure Costs Discovery and Subpoenas Interlocutory Applications

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pages Property Investments Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Attila Boros

First Defendant

Pages Equipment Holdings Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Corporations List / Post Interlocutory Motions for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should bear the costs of two interlocutory motions concerning production of documents where both were dismissed by consent after further production of documents.
  2. 2 Whether the default costs order in rule 42.7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) should be displaced.
  3. 3 Whether one party was 'substantially successful' on the motions justifying a different costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was substantially successful on both the Subpoena Motion and the Plaintiff's Motion, having ultimately obtained virtually all the documents it sought after protracted and resisted discovery efforts by the defendants, justifying a departure from the default 'costs in the cause' order under UCPR r 42.7(1) and a discrete costs order in favour of the plaintiff for the relevant motions and hearings.

Court Disposition

Defendants ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the first defendant's Notice of Motion filed 16 April 2018, the plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed 13 March 2019 and specified related hearings.

Orders

  • Order the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the first defendant's Notice of Motion filed 16 April 2018, the plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed 13 March 2019 and the hearings on 13 September 2018, 9 November 2018, 30 November 2018, 8 February 2019, 1 March 2019, 22 March 2019, 6 May 2019, 17 June 2019 and 24...